Meeting individual students needs

A look at the good and bad of constructivist approaches Today’s teachers teach a unique generation of students that grow up in a fast-paced, multi-cultural, globalised world. Instant information, new technologies, job mobility and interchanging careers are all characteristics of this era. This has prompted educators to re-evaluate their teaching methods. As a result constructivist approaches to learning have been gaining ground, especially during the past decade.

Meeting individual

student needs

2 Meeting Individual Student Needs Using Constructivist Approaches

Today’s teachers teach a unique generation of students that grow up in a fast-paced, multi-

cultural, globalised world. Instant information, new technologies, job mobility and

interchanging careers are all characteristics of this era. This has prompted educators to re-

evaluate their teaching methods. As a result constructivist approaches to learning have

been gaining ground, especially during the past decade.

Constructivist approaches have both supporters and detractors. However most educators

realize that in a world of increasing change and instability, they have to develop innovative

practices to prepare students for the challenges that they will encounter in the future

(Burns & Erickson, 2001; Reese. 2009). In this regard, today’s teachers should view these

approaches as more than just a passing trend or educational fad. In fact, constructivism in

education has been widely research, and its practical applications in the classroom have

already been well-established by the beginning of the last decade (Slavin, 1991). In addition,

constructivist approaches enjoy recognition from such institutions as the US National

Council of Teachers of Mathematics. This organisation’s standards include reference to

constructivist approaches as its members believe it provides students with an equal

opportunity to succeed in mathematics (Montague, 2003).

Even so, some questions and challenges remain and researchers have found that teachers

still shy away from using constructivist approaches in the classroom (McInerney, 2005;

Davison, Galbraith & McQueen, 2008). Reasons behind this reluctance include a lack of

training in constructivist methods, a lack of resources to apply constructivist learning

approaches, uncertainty as to when and how to use these strategies as part of the

traditional classroom and incongruities with institutional constraints such as accountability,

student-tracking and curriculum.

This paper will briefly describe the nature of constructivist approaches and their possible

benefits. In light of the above-mentioned challenges, this paper will then discuss three

constructivist approaches – cooperative, discovery and mediated learning - illustrating how

teachers can use them to supplement more traditional teaching methods to meet the

individual needs of students.

Constructivist learning approaches:


According to constructivism, people learn through constructing their own understanding

and knowledge of the world. This happens through hands-on experiences and reflection on

those experiences. The constructivist teacher is not the source of knowledge, but rather the

facilitator of learning, while students have to be active participants in the learning process

(Slavin, 2009).

Howard, McGee, Schwartz & Purcell (2000) outlines the perfect constructivist learning

environment as one that offers active learning experiences where students can discover,

collaborate and think critically. These opportunities can be as simple as asking students to

solve real-life problems, work together on group projects, commenting on articles in the

local newspaper, keeping a journal or exploring solutions on research questions.

Meeting the needs of individual learners:

As student-centered learning strategies, constructivist approaches have the potential to

meet the needs of individual learners. Constructivist approaches have been found to be

especially useful to helping those students with learning difficulties. For instance,

constructivist approaches such as mediated learning, can help students with learning

difficulties learning conquer traditional algorithms - a subject matter which these students

usually find “insurmountable” Montague (2003, p.174).

Whether students are on the high or low end of the academic spectrum, constructivist

learning approaches benefits all learners as they promote deeper learning and personal

growth. Collaborative approaches help students to focus on big ideas and to explore

multiple perspectives. Furthermore, active learning helps students to gain a deeper

understanding of the material they are learning by constructing their own personal

interpretation of academic material. The latter is especially true for high achievers, as

constructivist approaches put them in a teaching/supporting role (Shimazoe & Aldrich,

2010; Olsen, 2000; Wu & Tsai, 2005).

Teachers can then use constructivist approaches not only to help struggling students master

classroom material, but they can also challenge their gifted students by assigning them to


help others with math problems or ask them to explain complex concepts to their fellow

students.

As mentioned earlier, constructivist approaches are not new to the field of education, and

teachers can draw on a large body of research and practical applications when using these

in their classrooms. Three such established approaches will be explained here, namely

cooperative learning, discovery learning and mediated learning (scaffolding).

Cooperative learning

Cooperative learning is based on Vygotksy’s idea that children learn through interacting

with adults and more capable peers (Slavin, 2009). There are many tried and tested

cooperative learning methods such as Student-Team Achievement Divisions (STAD), Team

Game Tournament and Jigsaw Classroom.

Student-Team Achievement Divisions (STAD) was developed by researchers at the Johns

Hopkins University more than two decades ago. STAD is one of the simplest and most

extensively researched forms of all cooperative learning techniques. As such, it is especially

useful to teachers who are new to cooperative learning (Van Wyk, 2010).

As a student team learning strategy, STAD can be used in any part of a lesson. It works as

follows: The teacher gives a lesson. Students are then divided in study teams of four to five

members. After studying they take quizzes individually to demonstrate how much they have

learned. The individual quiz scores are then calculated to form a team score, and teams are

rewarded for their performance (Slavin, 2009; Van Wayk, 2010).

The main benefit of STAD is its flexibility as a method: Teams can be made up of students

with varying academic abilities, genders and race and can be used at different grade levels.

It can furthermore be applied in a variety of subjects. However, Slavin (1991) notes that it is

most appropriate for teaching well-defined objectives that requires single right answers.

Team Game Tournament (TGT) (Appendix 1) was designed by Robert Slavin for review and

mastery learning of material. Several studies support the success of TGT, and it is accepted


that this method increases basic skills, students’ achievement, positive interactions between

students and self-esteem (O’Mahoney, 2006). With TGT, students learn material in class,

before reviewing the content in heterogeneous study teams. After studying, students

compete in academically homogeneous tournament teams where they can earn points for

their study teams. As with STAD, the Tournament-method works best with learning

material for which there is a specific correct answer (Slavin, 1991).

The success of these student team learning strategies are supported by studies such as the

one by Syh-Jong (2007) who found Taiwanese students’ response to collaborative learning

in a science class to be overwhelmingly positive. Working in groups helped students to

construct knowledge for themselves, it helped them to formulate their thoughts clearly and

helped them to explain science concepts in their own words. For more information on how

to use STAD and TGT in the classroom, see Robert Slavin’s Student Team Learning: A

Practical Guide to Cooperative Learning which can be downloaded from

http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED339518.pdf .

Another cooperative learning technique that has passed the test in many classrooms over

the years is the Jigsaw Classroom (Appendix 2). This is a cooperative learning technique

that brings students together by making each function as a piece of the puzzle. This means

that every student must do his or her part in order for the group to reach their goal. Because

of this, this method has been found to reduce conflict and increase positive educational

outcomes (Reese, 2009; Slavin, 1991). Jigsaw forces students to rely on each other. In doing

so, they learn to value each other as teammates with a common goal.

The Jigsaw Classroom is endorsed by the American Psychological Association (APA) for

enhancing academic performance, reducing stereotypes and prejudice and improving social

relations. As quoted by Reese (2009, p. 9) the APA notes that Jigsaw has “the potential to

improve education dramatically in a multicultural world by revolutionizing the way

children learn”. Other benefits include improved attitudes toward school, increased self-

esteem and lower absenteeism (Slavin, 1991). Appendix 2 lists ten easy steps for using

Jigsaw Classroom. Additional resources for using Jigsaw Classroom are available from

http://www.jigsaw.org/ .

http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED339518.pdf�

http://www.jigsaw.org/�


In addition to improving academic achievement, all of the above team-based cooperative

learning strategies develop students’ communication skills (speaking and listening) and

allows teachers to accommodate the needs of “those on the margin” (Davison, et. al., 2008,

p. 307). Other specific benefits include the development of problem solving skills, the

opportunity to teach social and emotional skills, promoting social understanding, increasing

motivation and fostering peer acceptance (Davison, et. al, 2008; Slavin, 2009; Shimazoe &

Aldrich, 2010).

However, in order for collaborative learning to deliver on all these promises, teachers have

to note the following: The learning task must be structured in such as way that every group

member must be involved and participate; students must understand the goal of the

exercise, there must be frequent teacher- student interaction; there must be adequate

feedback and their must be a positive group attitude (Davison, et. al, 2008; Shimazoe &

Aldrich, 2010; Buher, 2004).

Discovery learning

Discovery learning is inquiry-based teaching where students learn through active

involvement and discovery. It holds that instead of just transferring knowledge, the teacher

allows the students to discover already known principles for themselves (Slavin, 2009). In

other words, discovery learning is building knowledge through questioning, examination

and investigation. This hands-on exploration teaches students how to find solutions – a key

benefit of discovery learning (McDaniel & Schlager, 1990).

Informally, children learn through discovery all the time: Figuring out how to build the

tower higher by staggering the blocks or understanding ecosystems by exploring nature.

Children are natural discoverers who are eager to investigate the world around them.

Teachers can capitalize on this innate ability by including discovery learning methods in

lesson plans such as experiments, exploration and inquiry-based tasks, simulations and

problem-solving challenges.

One such inquiry-based method is WebQuest (Appendix 3). It was created in 1995 by Dr.

Bernie Dodge, a professor at San Diego State University, as a model for integrating the

Internet in classroom activities. Teachers can adapt WebQuest for any lesson or grade level


and can be adjusted to suit students with differing academic abilities (Dodge, 1997; Raia,

2009). A complete description and explanation of WebQuest can be found at

http://webquest.org/index.php and a sample lesson plan can be downloaded from:

http://www.pcboe.net/webquest/noahsark/index.htm

Proponents of discovery learning techniques believe that the active involvement of students

engage them in the learning process. As such these methods encourage autonomy and

independence and promote the development of creativity and problem-solving skills

(Coffey, 2009). On a practical level, discovery learning prepares students for the real world

where they will have to make decisions and find solutions to daily challenges.

Strategies incorporating the Internet (such as WebQuest) are especially useful to students

as it teaches them to deal with and evaluate the wealth of information available on the web

– something they will have to do throughout their adult lives. Scheuerell (2010, p.198)

encourages teachers to incorporate technology and proven cooperative learning strategies

in their lesson plans as it “solves the dilemma of having students in the classroom working

alone and having no opportunity to develop the twenty-first century skills needed for

citizenship in our democracy.”

However, critics of discovery learning caution that these ‘open’ methods may be

overwhelming for those learners who need more structure. It might also be harder for

teachers to spot when students are having learning problems. Some opponents even believe

that discovery learning is so inefficient and difficult to organize successfully that other

methods are preferable (Coffey, 2009; Tomei, 2004).

The solution to the above-stated problems once again lies in striking a balance between the

freedom of discovery learning and the structure of instructional learning by guiding

students throughout the process (Van Joolingen, 1999). For instance, when students are

asked to do an experiment, teachers should break down it down in smaller, specific tasks.

They can then monitor students’ progress throughout, making sure they stay on track with

the learning goals. Similarly, if students break out in groups, teachers should not see this as

extra time to catch up on their administrative duties. Rather, they need to stay engaged and

offer active, consistent guidance to make sure students remain on target.

http://webquest.org/index.php�

http://www.pcboe.net/webquest/noahsark/index.htm�


Mediated learning

Mediated learning is also described as assisted learning or scaffolding. With this method the

teacher acts as a guide. They give students the necessary support (scaffolding) to start the

learning process and then gradually remove their support, transferring the responsibility of

learning to the students. Scaffolding can be used to teach children of varying skill level and

age to become independent learners (Slavin, 2009; Vacca, 2008; McGee & Ukrainetz, 2009).

Vacca (2008) offers the following guidelines for teachers who want to include mediated

learning in their lesson plans: Provide clear direction, clarify purpose, keep students on task

and define expectations. Most importantly, teachers must pay careful attention to students’

readiness to complete more complex tasks on their own. Following these guidelines,

scaffolding or mediated learning will give students the freedom to test their skills while

enjoying ‘the safety net’ of their teachers and peers.

Apart from being suitable for different ages and different academic abilities, mediated

learning or scaffolding also has multiple applications: It can help students to develop

creativity and resourcefulness (Vacca, 2008) or can be used to teach a specific skill such as

phonemic awareness (McGee & Ukrainetz, 2009). Lapp, Fisher & Grant (2008) illustrate

how supported learning can be used to improve students’ reading comprehension in a

diversified, multi-cultural classroom.

One mediated learning technique often used in classrooms is ‘think-alouds’. With this

technique teacher and students read through a text together, talking each other through the

content to ensure understanding and mastery. As Lapp, et. al. (2008, p. 378) points out, this

interactive, supported learning technique are beneficial to all students: “An interactive

think-aloud provides a means for modeling, scaffolding and practicing. It offers struggling

readers the opportunity to see and hear how proficient readers approach a text, and it

allows advanced students to engage in conversation that draw on their prior knowledge.”

Teachers also benefit from think-alouds as they receive valuable feedback from their

students. Hearing directly from their students they will know whether they understand the

text, but moreover, they will know which areas they struggle with. For this reason, Lapp et.


al. (2008) advocates more of this kind of ‘conversational engagement’ of students as a way

for teachers to create a learning environment that accommodates the individual needs of

students with different educational background and needs.

Another scaffolding strategy is the IMSCI model for writing instruction. IMSCI is an acronym

for a serious of steps teachers take students through to help them improve their reading

and writing skills: I = Inquiry; M = Modeling; S = Shared writing; C = Collaborative writing

and I = Independent writing. The IMSCI model can be used at any grade level as teachers

can easily adjust the levels of support to suit students’ abilities (Read, 2010).

Constructivist approaches – collaborative, discovery and mediated learning – needn’t stand

alone. In fact, teachers will probably find that more often than not that blending these

approaches are useful in enhancing students’ learning experiences. One example of such a

combination approach is the Story Face strategy developed by Staal (2000).

The Story Face is an original adaptation of the popular story mapping strategy that teaches

reading comprehension. It uses a visual framework (resembling a face) for understanding,

identifying and remembering elements in the text, such as main characters, the setting,

events, the problem and solution. The Story Face strategy allows teachers to use a face

analogy when explaining comprehension, for example a happy face if it is a happy story and

a sad face if it is a sad one.

Students can use the template to determine the different elements of the story (discovery

learning). This can be done individually or in groups (collaborative learning). Finally, Staal

(2000, p.30) notes that Story Face is also “a scaffold for narrative writing” where students

can elaborate on the template by filling in more details and descriptions.

Once again the Story Face is a constructivist strategy effective in teaching children of

differing abilities and age groups. The stronger their ability, the more they can use the

strategy independently. For younger or less capable students, the strategy can be used in

group work or collaboratively in the classroom (Staal, 2000).

Summary:


Today’s students are tomorrow's workers who will have to be able to work in teams and

will have to be flexible and mobile. As citizens in an increasingly multi-cultural society, they

will also face more and more complex environmental, social and economical issues. This

‘new world’ will require them to collaborate, innovate, problem-solve and reflect. Teachers

can develop these skills by using constructivist approaches in the classroom as these

approaches mirror the fluid nature of an ever-changing environment.

A simple online search will present teachers with myriad resources making it easy for them

to draw on the benefits of constructivism. Moreover, constructivist approaches such as

Jigsaw, Teams Game Tournament and Story Face present teachers with fun, creative and

exciting ways of making their classrooms come alive.

However, good constructivist learning experiences don’t happen by chance. Ironically these

student-centred approaches require careful planning on the part of the teacher and

necessitate deliberate execution to qualify as learning experiences. For instance, when

setting up constructivist learning experience teachers need to specifically pay attention to

developing guidelines and setting goals, the choice of reward systems and ensuring

individual accountability (Shimazoe & Aldrich, 2010).

Robert Slavin, who have researched cooperative learning strategies for almost two decades,

noted that “successful [constructivist] models always include plain old good instruction; the

cooperative strategies supplement, but do not replace direct instruction (what they do

replace is individual seatwork).” (Slavin, 1991, p.86)

In addition to striking a balance between traditional and constructivist teaching principles,

teachers should also expect a learning curve when applying constructivist approaches

(Shimazoe & Aldrich, 2010; Bertucci, Conte, Johnson & Johnson, 2010).

For instance, some children might have to learn how to work together first, before the

actual group work can begin.

Challenges aside, successful constructivist learning are supported by well-documented

research. By drawing on this knowledge and through paying careful attention to the


planning and execution of constructivist approaches, teachers and students have much to

gain from these student-centred strategies.

REFERENCES Bertucci, A., Conte, S., Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, R.T. (2010). The impact of size of

cooperative group on achievement, social support and self-esteem. The Journal of General Psychology. 2010. Vol. 137, No. 3, opp. 256-272.


Buher, G. (2004). Math for Multiple Intelligences. Learn North Carolina. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Education. http://www.learnnc.org/lp/editions/mathmultintell/650

Berns, R.G. & Erickson, P.M. (2001). Contextual teaching and learning: Preparing

students for the new economy. The Highlight Zone: Research @ Work No. 5. http://www.nccte.com/publications/infosynthesis/index.asp#HZ

Coffey, H. (2009). Discovery Learning. Learn North Carolina University of North

Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Education. http://www.learnnc.org/lp/pages/5352?ref=search

Dodge, B. (1997). Some thoughts on WebQuests. Department of Education, San Diego

State University. http://webquest.sdsu.edu/about_webquests.html Davison, L., Galbraith, I. & McQueen, M. (2008). Cooperative learning: A partnership between

an EPS and a school. Educational Psychology in Practice. Vol. 24, No. 4, December 2008, pp. 307-317.

Howard, B.C., McGee, S., Schwartz, N. & Purcell, S. (2000). The experience of constructivism:

Transforming teacher epistemology. Journal of Research on Computing in Education. Summer 2000: Vol. 32, No. 4. Pp. 455-465.

Lapp, D., Fisher, D. & Grant, M. (2008). “You can read this text – I’ll show you how”:

Interactive comprehension instruction. Journal of adolescent and adult literacy. Vol 51 (5). February 2008. Pp. 372-383.

McGee, L.M. & Ukrainetz, T.A. (2009). Using scaffolding to teach phonemix awareness

in preschool and kindergarten. The Reading Teacher. Vol 62 (7), pp. 599-603. McInerney, D.M. (2005). Educational psychology – theory, research and teaching: A 25-

year retrospective. Educational Psychology. Vol. 25, No. 6, December 2005. Pp. 585-599.

Montague, M. (2003). Teaching division to students with learning disabilities: A

constructivist approach. Exceptionality. Vol 11(3), pp. 165-175. Olsen, D.G. (2000). Constructivist principles of learning and teaching methods. Education. Vol.

120, No. 2. Pp. 347-355. O’Mahoney, M (2006) Teams-Games-Tournament(TGT) Cooperative Learning and Review NABT Conference 14 October 2006 Retrieved from Raia, O. (2009). The WebQuest Issue. Keys to Inclusion. The New Jersey Coalition for

Inclusive Education. Vol. 3, Issue 1. September 2009. www.njcie.net/pdf/resources/webquests.pdf

Read, S. (2010). A model for scaffolding writing instruction: IMSCI. The Reading

http://soe.unc.edu/�

http://www.learnnc.org/lp/editions/mathmultintell/650�

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/simpleSearch.jsp?_pageLabel=ERICSearchResult&_urlType=action&newSearch=true&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=au&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=%22Berns+Robert+G.%22�

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/simpleSearch.jsp?_pageLabel=ERICSearchResult&_urlType=action&newSearch=true&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=au&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=%22Erickson+Patricia+M.%22�

http://www.nccte.com/publications/infosynthesis/index.asp#HZ�

http://soe.unc.edu/�

http://www.learnnc.org/lp/pages/5352?ref=search�

http://webquest.sdsu.edu/about_webquests.html�

http://www.njcie.net/pdf/resources/webquests.pdf�


Teacher. Vol. 64 (1), pp. 47-52.

Reese, S (2009). The Jigsaw Classroom. Techniques. April 2009. www.acteonline.com Scheuerell, S. (2010). Virtual Warrensburg: Using cooperative learning and the internet

in the social studies classroom. The Social Studies. 2010. Vol. 101, pp. 194-199. Shimazoe, J. & Aldrich, H. (2010). Group work can be gratifying: Understanding &

overcoming resistance to cooperative learning. College Teaching. Vol. 58, pp. 52-57. Slavin, R.E. (1991). Student team learning: A practical guide to cooperative learning.

Third Edition. National Education Association. Washington. Slavin, R.E. (2009) Educational Psychology. Ninth Edition. Pearson. New Jersey. Staal, L.A. (2000). The story face: An adaptation of story mapping that incorporates

visualization and discovery learning to enhance reading and writing. The Reading Teacher. Vol 54 (1). September 2008. Pp. 26-31.

Syh-Jong, J. (2007). A study of students’ construction of science knowledge: Talk and

writing in a collaborative group. Educational Research. Vol. 49, No. 1, March 2007. Pp. 65-81.

Tomei, L. (2004). An Examination of Cognitivism: The Psychology of Knowledge and Strategies. http://academics.rmu.edu/~tomei/ed711psy/c_bruner.htm

Vacca, J.S. (2008). Using scaffolding techniques to teach a social studies lesson about

Buddha to sixth graders. Journal of adolescent and adult literacy. Vol 51 (8). May 2008. Pp. 652-658.

Van Joolingen, W. (1999) Cognitive tools for discovery learning. International Journal of

Artificial Intelligence in Education (1999), 10, 385-397, Graduate School of Teaching and Learning, University of Amsterdam.

Van Wyk, M. M. (2010). Do student teams achievement divisions enhance economic

literacy? An quasi-experimental design. Journal of Social Science. Vol. 23, No. 2. Pp. 83-89)

Wu, Y. & Tsai, C. (2005). Effects of constructivist-oriented instruction on elementary

school students’ cognitive structures. Journal of Biological Education. 2005. Vol. 39, No. 3. pp. 113-119.

APPENDIX 1: Teams-Games-Tournaments

Steps:

1. Select an instructional topic and present it to the students (e.g. the Constitution).

http://www.acteonline.com/�

http://academics.rmu.edu/~tomei/ed711psy/c_bruner.htm�


2. Develop a list of questions on the topic. Number them. Cut out small pieces of paper

and number them so that the total matches the number of questions that you have

developed for the topic to measure understanding (e.g. if you have 35 questions,

create small pieces of paper with numbers 1-35 on them). Give a set of questions to

one student in each group who reads the questions as their corresponding numbers

are drawn from the pile. Tip: have students place any numbers for which they were

unable to come up with the correct answers in a small bag. Collect those numbers

and use them to guide what you will reteach.

3. Team Game - place students in heterogeneous groups of 4-5 by ability and have

them review material during this “team” phase by selecting a number from the pile.

Groups must be equal in size. Give each group a “Letter Identity” (e.g. Group A) and

each student a Number Identity (e.g. Student 1). Students must answer the question

that matches the number they selected from the pile. For example, if a student

selects #22 from the pile and question #22 is “Why is government divided into 3

branches,” that student is challenged to answer that question. If he or she cannot

come up with an answer, a teammate can “steal” the question. Teams share

knowledge during this phase of the lesson. (i.e. teach their teammates).

4. Tournament- place students in new groups made up of individuals from each of the

"Team Review" tables (step 2). All “Students 1s” go to Table 1 (these might be lower

achieving students) while all “Student 2s” (higher achieving) go to Table 2. In the

"Game" phase, students are placed in homogeneous groups with students of similar

ability and compete against one another. For every question a student answers

correctly, he or she earns a point. One person at each “tournament table” must keep

scores for every individual at the "Game" table.

5. Students return to their Team Game tables and report their scores. Team scores are

compared and the winning team earns a reward.

6. Students take an assessment. The scores for each Team (e.g. A, B, C…) are compiled

and averaged. Offer “bonus points” for the team that earns the highest average

and/or “improvement points” to the team that improves its average the most over

previous assessments.

Source: http://www.udel.edu/dssep/teaching_strategies/tgt_coop.htm

http://www.udel.edu/dssep/teaching_strategies/tgt_coop.htm�


APPENDIX 2: Jigsaw

Jigsaw in 10 Easy Steps

The jigsaw classroom is very simple to use. If you're a teacher, just follow these steps:

1. Divide students into 5- or 6-person jigsaw groups. The groups should be diverse in

terms of gender, ethnicity, race, and ability.

2. Appoint one student from each group as the leader. Initially, this person should be

the most mature student in the group.

3. Divide the day's lesson into 5-6 segments. For example, if you want history students

to learn about Eleanor Roosevelt, you might divide a short biography of her into

stand-alone segments on: (1) Her childhood, (2) Her family life with Franklin and

their children, (3) Her life after Franklin contracted polio, (4) Her work in the White

House as First Lady, and (5) Her life and work after Franklin's death.

4. Assign each student to learn one segment, making sure students have direct access

only to their own segment.

5. Give students time to read over their segment at least twice and become familiar

with it. There is no need for them to memorize it.

6. Form temporary "expert groups" by having one student from each jigsaw group join

other students assigned to the same segment. Give students in these expert groups

time to discuss the main points of their segment and to rehearse the presentations

they will make to their jigsaw group.

7. Bring the students back into their jigsaw groups.

8. Ask each student to present her or his segment to the group. Encourage others in

the group to ask questions for clarification.


9. Float from group to group, observing the process. If any group is having trouble

(e.g., a member is dominating or disruptive), make an appropriate intervention.

Eventually, it's best for the group leader to handle this task. Leaders can be trained

by whispering an instruction on how to intervene, until the leader gets the hang of

it.

10. At the end of the session, give a quiz on the material so that students quickly come

to realize that these sessions are not just fun and games but really count.

Source: http://www.jigsaw.org/

APPENDIX 3: WebQuest

Put the Title of the Lesson Here

A WebQuest for xth Grade (Put Subject Here)

Designed by

Put Your Name Here

Put Your E-mail Address Here

Put some interesting graphic representing the content here

Introduction

This document should be written with the student as the intended audience. Write a short

paragraph here to introduce the activity or lesson to the students. If there is a role or

scenario involved (e.g., "You are a detective trying to identify the mysterious poet.") then

here is where you'll set the stage. If there's no motivational intro like that, use this section to

provide a short advance organizer or overview. Remember that the purpose of this section

is to both prepare and hook the reader.

http://www.jigsaw.org/�


It is also in this section that you'll communicate the Big Question (Essential Question,

Guiding Question) that the whole WebQuest is centered around.

The Task

Describe crisply and clearly what the end result of the learners' activities will be. The task

could be a:

• problem or mystery to be solved;

• position to be formulated and defended;

• product to be designed;

• complexity to be analyzed;

• personal insight to be articulated;

• summary to be created;

• persuasive message or journalistic account to be crafted;

• a creative work, or

• anything that requires the learners to process and transform the information

they've gathered.

If the final product involves using some tool (e.g., HyperStudio, the Web, video), mention it

here.

Don't list the steps that students will go through to get to the end point. That belongs in the

Process section.

The Process

To accomplish the task, what steps should the learners go through? Use the numbered list

format in your web editor to automatically number the steps in the procedure. Describing

this section well will help other teachers to see how your lesson flows and how they might

adapt it for their own use, so the more detail and care you put into this, the better.

Remember that this whole document is addressed to the student, however, so describe the

steps using the second person.

1. First you'll be assigned to a team of 3 students...

2. Once you've picked a role to play....


3. ... and so on.

Learners will access the on-line resources that you've identified as they go through the

Process. You may have a set of links that everyone looks at as a way of developing

background information, or not. If you break learners into groups, embed the links that each

group will look at within the description of that stage of the process. (Note, this is a change

from the older WebQuest templates which included a separate Resources section. It's now

clear that the resources belong in the Process section rather than alone.)

In the Process block, you might also provide some guidance on how to organize the

information gathered. This advice could suggestions to use flowcharts, summary tables,

concept maps, or other organizing structures. The advice could also take the form of a

checklist of questions to analyze the information with, or things to notice or think about. If

you have identified or prepared guide documents on the Web that cover specific skills

needed for this lesson (e.g. how to brainstorm, how to prepare to interview an expert), link

them to this section.

Evaluation

Describe to the learners how their performance will be evaluated. Specify whether there

will be a common grade for group work vs. individual grades.

Beginning

1

Developing

2

Accomplished

3

Exemplary

4

Score

Stated

Objective or

Performance

Description of

identifiable

performance

characteristics

reflecting a

beginning

level of

performance.

Description of

identifiable

performance

characteristics

reflecting

development

and

movement

toward

Description of

identifiable

performance

characteristics

reflecting

mastery of

performance.

Description of

identifiable

performance

characteristics

reflecting the

highest level

of

performance.


mastery of

performance.

Stated

Objective or

Performance

Description of

identifiable

performance

characteristics

reflecting a

beginning

level of

performance.

Description of

identifiable

performance

characteristics

reflecting

development

and

movement

toward

mastery of

performance.

Description of

identifiable

performance

characteristics

reflecting

mastery of

performance.

Description of

identifiable

performance

characteristics

reflecting the

highest level

of

performance.

Stated

Objective or

Performance

Description of

identifiable

performance

characteristics

reflecting a

beginning

level of

performance.

Description of

identifiable

performance

characteristics

reflecting

development

and

movement

toward

mastery of

performance.

Description of

identifiable

performance

characteristics

reflecting

mastery of

performance.

Description of

identifiable

performance

characteristics

reflecting the

highest level

of

performance.

Stated

Objective or

Performance

Description of

identifiable

performance

characteristics

reflecting a

beginning

level of

performance.

Description of

identifiable

performance

characteristics

reflecting

development

and

movement

Description of

identifiable

performance

characteristics

reflecting

mastery of

performance.

Description of

identifiable

performance

characteristics

reflecting the

highest level

of

performance.


toward

mastery of

performance.

Stated

Objective or

Performance

Description of

identifiable

performance

characteristics

reflecting a

beginning

level of

performance.

Description of

identifiable

performance

characteristics

reflecting

development

and

movement

toward

mastery of

performance.

Description of

identifiable

performance

characteristics

reflecting

mastery of

performance.

Description of

identifiable

performance

characteristics

reflecting the

highest level

of

performance.

Conclusion

Put a couple of sentences here that summarizes what they will have accomplished or

learned by completing this activity or lesson. You might also include some rhetorical

questions or additional links to encourage them to extend their thinking into other content

beyond this lesson.

Source: http://webquest.sdsu.edu/templates/lesson-template1.htm

http://webquest.sdsu.edu/templates/lesson-template1.htm�

Meeting individual students needs

Documents

Transcript of Meeting individual students needs